/m/giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

While his ERA is still high at 4.26 his K/9 is now 9.7, BB/9 3.7 (high but not scary), HR/9 0.8

Given those stats I'd say he should be a lot more effective in the future. His xFIP (pregame) was 3.30, FIP 3.48 both very decent figures. This winter as a free agent it should be interesting to see what he gets. Do you trust that the component stats tell the tale or do you fear he will have a 4-5 ERA in the future?

This winter will be fun in free agency between Lincecum and Josh Johnson (horrid start but has been much better since coming back from injury) not to mention Roy Halladay (what the heck do you do with him?). 3 guys who could be Cy Young contenders if healthy and all is well, or all 3 could be injured or ineffective. Who knows? That is the multi-million dollar (and maybe multi-year) question.

Randy Johnson I won't go into as we all know pre-1990 he wasn't much but boy did he develop afterwards (a few years after, but WOW). He averaged 117 pitches per start after that high pitch game in 1990 and had a 3.44 ERA in those games btw.

So the top 2 on the list didn't see their arms fall off thus I wouldn't worry too much about Lincecum. Now, if they did this over and over again then I'd get a bit nervous but Randy Johnson showed that a freak of nature (which most would agree Lincecum is) can survive torture like that.

For fun I checked a couple more Johnson years...
Games over 130 pitches
1988: 1 despite having just 4 starts in his first ML season - it was his 2nd ML game.
1989: 2
1990: 7 including 2 over 150
1991: 4
1992: 11 including a 160 and a 159 pitch game
1993: 11 including 2 in the 150's
1994: 11 despite the strike, including another 150
1995: 10 (slowing down) including a 160 pitch game
1996: injured this year, never hit 130 (max a 129), just 14 games
1997: 11 again, one in the 150's
1998: 15 (!) but never reached 150
1999: 9 this time
2000: 5 (slowing down)
2001: 4
2002: 4 again (149 peak)
2003: none in 18 games and he'd never get 130 in a game again.

Wow. Imagine a pitcher doing that now - 130 pitches in his 2nd game, 6 times cracking 10 games in a season over 130, 150+ reached 9 times. And he still got 300+ wins and 4875 K's. Just wow.

Looks like a good start to me. Not a great one. Virtually every starter in the league could have made it. And would have, had they managed to simply play against a lineup with no .300 hitter in the friendliest pitchers park of the league.

The Padres are nominally considered a major league lineup, which I guess is why people were fooled into thinking this was a special performance. I see nothing remarkable about it.

Mentioned it in the OmniChatter, although I thought it was 148. Easy to give Lincecum extra rest with the All-Star break, but if he has a Santana-like reaction, there will be plenty of critics.

Given the context (he's been awful for a year and half, the team's free falling out of contention, he's an impending free agent, the ASB is coming up), I don't think there will be. It's about as justifiable a situation as once can find to throw caution to the wind in pursuit of a single-game accomplishment.

If this was 2009, when he was at the height of his powers, then certainly. People were freaking out when he threw 115 pitchers then.

Looks like a good start to me. Not a great one. Virtually every starter in the league could have made it. And would have, had they managed to simply play against a lineup with no .300 hitter in the friendliest pitchers park of the league.

The Padres are nominally considered a major league lineup, which I guess is why people were fooled into thinking this was a special performance. I see nothing remarkable about it.

The pitch count thing got me thinking about Roger Clemens, who was routinely whipped like a government mule in the 80s. I remember this for two reasons: 1) He never threw a no-hitter; 2) he was worked to death even though he suffered elbow issues as a kid in 1984-85.

B-Ref pitch counts only go back to 1988, but here's some of the "fun" stats from 1988-1992:

In 1988, in back-to-back (July 25, 30) starts, the threw 162 and 154 pitches, respectively. In back-to-back starts in May (5/14, 5/20) he threw 145 and 150 pitches.

In 1989, he cleared 150 twice (high of 158). He threw 140 in his last start of the season.

In 1990, he threw 161 pitches in a game. The only time he cleared 150 that season (but several games of 140+)

1991: The Sox start easing off the throttle -- his high is 154, with only three other games over 140.

1992: 5 games over 140, but my favorite has to be 6/21, where he tossed 149 in 6.2 innings.

He's then dinged-up for a few seasons.

Fast forward to 1996: The Sox should really be ashamed of themselves. I guess they figured, "he's gone so let's torch him". They run their 34-yr-old starter out there for pitch counts of 161, 158, 151. What they did to him in June of that season was criminal.

Considering he had another 10 seasons (several of them elite) ahead of him, he obviously weathered the storm.

So what's the friggin point? Well, I'm guessing Roger had well over 100 games of 130+ pitches. Nolan Ryan probably had several hundred. RJ had dozens, if not more. It's not about body-type. Look at Strasburg, Prior, Wood, Beckett, Johnson... all "prototype" bodies (crossing my fingers with Harvey). Genetics, luck, and mechanics conspire to produce durability. Timmy might be fine, he might be damaged. I'm guessing fine. Damage is usually cumulative. One game isn't going to be the culprit. Santana's non-no came on a badly damaged arm -- can't blame that one game for his current woes.

I think a lot of a pitcher's a ability to throw lots of innings, lots of pitches, for lots of years is the power you can generate from your legs. I assume this typically comes from the obvious attribute of big, thick strong upper legs, like a Ryan, a Clemens, or a Seaver - but I suppose one could also use your legs effectively to maximize the strength you can generate through an especially efficient delivery, too.

2000: 5 (slowing down)
2001: 4
2002: 4 again (149 peak)
2003: none in 18 games and he'd never get 130 in a game again.

I wonder if that trend is more a reflection of Johnson slowing down, or a change in pitch-count philosophy.

For fun, I looked at Mark Prior's September 2003 game logs, and found a 131, 129, 131, and a 133, as well as a 124.

Then 133 pitches in his NLDS start. But just 116 in his first NLCS start, and 119 in his last.

EDIT: in 2003, there were only 32 games in which a starter threw at least 129 pitches, and four of them were by Mark Prior in September.
EDIT: This year there have been only four, and Lincecum's game is the only one with over 132.

Looks like a good start to me. Not a great one. Virtually every starter in the league could have made it. And would have, had they managed to simply play against a lineup with no .300 hitter in the friendliest pitchers park of the league.

Wouldn't one of the "friendliest pitchers park" make a no-hitter more difficult for Lincecum, not less, since his fielders had way more ground to cover?

Virtually every starter in the league could have made it. And would have, had they managed to simply play against a lineup with no .300 hitter

Come on, it's not like the Padres are putting out a bunch of AAA hitters. Team avg of .242 vs. NL average of .251, with four teams worse than them. Also, one-third of the teams in the NL have no player hitting .300, so it's not like the Padres are some kind of weak offensive outlier.

Are they in the bottom third of the league offensively? Yes. Is this the type of team that is more likely to be no-hit than, say, the Cardinals or Rockies? Yes.

Would pretty much any other pitcher in the league throw a no-hitter while facing this lineup? Uh, no.

@19: I agree with your conclusion but you seem to think the Red Sox did something wrong. I think Clemens's exceptional durability and record prove they did nothing wrong.

Clemens had shoulder surgery for a torn labrum after 1984. He then was the best pitcher in baseball from 1986-1992, with exceptional durability. He hurt his groin in 1993, an injury that was widely attributed to poor conditioning. In 1994, he was among the best pitchers in baseball again. In 1995, he started the year on DL with a shoulder strain, but still pitched 170 innings of 117 ERA+ ball, so not a bad year all things considered.

In 1996 he was worked hard in the first half, but had an outstanding second half and then won two consecutive Cy Young awards. After that he won two further Cy Youngs and pitched 200 innings a year several years into his forties.

I think his career proves the Red Sox were exactly right to use him as they did: they maximized his value to the team at absolutely no expense to his future performance or earnings ability (I don't know why a team should care about that, but the point is they didn't even go near that ethical minefield).

Given the context (he's been awful for a year and half, the team's free falling out of contention, he's an impending free agent, the ASB is coming up), I don't think there will be. It's about as justifiable a situation as once can find to throw caution to the wind in pursuit of a single-game accomplishment.

If this was 2009, when he was at the height of his powers, then certainly. People were freaking out when he threw 115 pitchers then.

This exactly.

Certainly had some nice plays behind him

I didn't really have that impression. The Pence catch in the 8th looked rough, but Pence makes everything look rough. Everything else was fairly routine.

Thank god. It does seem like the kind of thing I might read on BBTF from time to time. Now that I think of it it does parallel a real-life Manny Machado comment from a few days ago, which is why it seemed legit to me.

Wouldn't one of the "friendliest pitchers park" make a no-hitter more difficult for Lincecum, not less, since his fielders had way more ground to cover?

In addition to what Fancy said, pitcher-friendly does not necessarily mean simply homer-unfriendly. Oakland is pitcher friendly, in part because it has 170 acres of foul territory, which benefits the pitcher in ways that don't lead to more singles. A less than stellar hitting backdrop can also benefit the pitcher, as would things such as elevation, climate, etc.

Timmy has been a massive force for this team. He's won two Cy Youngs and been a significant part of two WS wins (including last year when he was a bad starter but an ACE reliever in the postseason). He's more than earned the chance to put another emphasis on his career. Add in the fact that he's been less than his classically amazing self for the past couple years and you've got a situation where, if he wanted to go out there, you absolutely send him.

Even if this contributes negatively toward him in the long term, I don't think either team and player made a bad decision here.

And all that aside, MAN it's good to see Timmy being Timmy here. I love to watch this guy pitch and it's really neat to know that even as things have sort of gone off the rails, he's still got some amazing stuff in the tank.

It's really hard to argue with that Edwin Kennedy example. Mostly because I have no idea who Edwin Kennedy is.

Love the pitch count psudeo-science. Keep it coming.

Edwin George Washington Lincoln Kennedy Jackson was on track to be one of the all time better than average presidentially named pitchers till that fateful 149 pitch outing.

All evidence suggests Timmy struggles his next few outings even with the additional rest. I don't need statistical analysis to know a guy who just ran a marathon isn't going to put up his best 10k times in the next few days after.

#9 That was one of Bill James' specific complaints about PAP. That it identified power pitchers as being at greater risk then they actually are. We know that K rate correlates positively with career length and that it takes power pitchers more pitches to deal with the same number of batters.

And that there are physical freaks at all kind of levels. Nolan Ryan almost certainly had an average pitch per start very close to 140 in both 1977 and 1974 and pitched forever (though it's worth noting that he did thrive when put on something approaching pitch limits. But nothing as strict as what most modern pitchers deal with). And he really did have a start where his pitch count couldn't have been less than 240 (probably more like 250) -- which obvious caught up with him ~2 decades later.

I think it very likely that Randy Johnson specifically could have been ridden harder.

On the other hand, Jack Morris shows up as kind of the tallest midget of his day because general patterns of use were of a nature that he could survive and most couldn't. I don't think it's an accident that we've had so many great careers following a general backing off of what's demanded of a top pitcher.

And I also think MLB's likely gone too far the other way. And that by adopting one size fits all rules they miss out on a few exceptional cases (and that it's probably better for starting pitchers as a whole that it is this way)

And that there are physical freaks at all kind of levels. Nolan Ryan almost certainly had an average pitch per start very close to 140 in both 1977 and 1974 and pitched forever (though it's worth noting that he did thrive when put on something approaching pitch limits. But nothing as strict as what most modern pitchers deal with). And he really did have a start where his pitch count couldn't have been less than 240 (probably more like 250) -- which obvious caught up with him ~2 decades later.

But the thing is that the modern game has really discovered, more so than any attention to PAP, is that relievers are much more effective than a starter's fourth (or even third) time through a lineup.

So it's not just that backing off the usage has extended careers, but it's also won ballgames.

#38 Sure, but there is probably a sweet spot that involves getting some more from the elite starters. I strongly suspect that the absolutely optimal use of pitchers (not just your starters, but also elite relief pitchers) is an extremely complex thing.

Still, what we have now is better in general for both pitcher and team and is probably close to optimal for somewhere between 70-90% of pitchers. Ask a little more from the elite power pitchers (on days when they have their best stuff), use closers when it's tied -- that kind of thing.

Sept 16, at least this is a close 3-1 game. 104 pitches through 7, he goes out for the 8th and gets it done in 7 pitches. Goes out for the 9th, throws another 13 giving up a single and a double and the great Joe Borowski comes on to get the final out.

Sept 27 ... mainly all you need to know is 133 pitches to get through 6.2 IP. In the 6th, ahead 4-1, Prior gives up 1 run on 3 hits while throwing 27 pitches. That brings him up to 117. Out for the 7th and it takes 16 pitches to get through Reboulet, Tike Redman and a walk to Nunez. On with Farnsworth.

So Dusty got 5.1 extra innings out of him, during which he gave up 4 runs and left 4 guys on base for his pen. Those 5.1 extra innings required 122 pitches.

Looks like a good start to me. Not a great one. Virtually every starter in the league could have made it. And would have, had they managed to simply play against a lineup with no .300 hitter in the friendliest pitchers park of the league.

The Padres are nominally considered a major league lineup, which I guess is why people were fooled into thinking this was a special performance. I see nothing remarkable about it.

"Ray" isn't too far off here. 13 Ks and 4 BB's isn't that much better than where Lincecum's been all season. In his game against the Padres he had a 2.77 xFIP, his seasonal xFIP is 3.25. And the combination of home ballpark and hitting talent has the Padres a bottom third team hitting wise this year, bringing the two numbers closer together.

I don't watch the game and I've seen like one Lincecum start all season, so I have no idea if he was really that much better. But I'm guessing a ton of this was luck and that it shouldn't really change our opinion of Lincecum this season or going forward. It's fine to enjoy no hitters and get excited rooting for them, but it's silly to act as if they say something special about the pitcher's talent on a given night. Lincecum's previous start was arguably better.

This was absolutely impressive because the major problem with Lincecum this year has been keeping things together inning after inning. He's looked electric for a lot of the year but just has one bad inning when things absolutely fall apart. For him to go out there 9 times and keep striking people out, that's fantastic totally independent of the no-hitter mystique.

#49 The Neyer/James book on pitchers is full of games like this -- many of which were career enders or effective career enders.

The highest known pitch counts are from a game in the 1860s, but there were no called strikes back then and 30+ pitch ABs were far from uncommon. Aside from that I'm pretty sure the top known is Al Jackson's 215 pitches in a 15 inning complete game loss in 1962. Game in question

Note that he batted in the bottom of the 14th and lost it in the top of the 15th.

And the way the top of the 15th went seems typical of the Mets that year. Tony Gonzalez led off with a groundball to 3rd. Marv Throneberry couldn't handle the throw. Single, intentional walk, single, bad bunt (getting lead runner) and two more outs. IOW without Throneberry's error, it might well have gone 16+.

I'm pretty sure the top known is Al Jackson's 215 pitches in a 15 inning complete game loss in 1962.

I transcribed that game for Retrosheet. I had a photocopy of Allen Lewis's scorecard, which was always great as he kept track of every pitch (including swinging strikes, called strikes and foul balls, albeit in pretty much chickenscratch). On the Mets scorecard, he had "215 pitches" circled with about five exclamation points, so this was clearly not a common occurrence.